As moderator of the Google group I am just responding to the the points
earlier stating that iron sulfate aerosol is not suitable for the CDR list.
My personal view is that greenhouse gas removal fits very closely with CDR,
to the point that they are are essentially interchangeable terms. Iron
I will register my disagreement: reduction of CH4 should be part of CDR;
you can count on my interest. For purists, let us refer to CH4 as CO2eq.
Peter Flynn
Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Andy-
It's good to hear from you.
Yes-there's a problem when one faction of society demonizes and prevents
relevant science from happening. There's also a problem when respected
scientists speak inaccurately, in order to prevent critical actions from
happening.
The examples below are
Hi Andy--Growing up in 1950s with college in early 1960s, I'll admit I'm
an idealist, and likely naive, but what is that old saying: "Never
wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it." (for
attribution controversy, see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/)
As noted in my
Important discussion and Mike’s point about roles and sequencing has merit,
but may be. missing an important negative feedback loop.
That loop exists when the ethical frame of one faction in civil society,
let’s say represented by EWG, is used to demonize and prohibit relevant
science itself.
Dear Peter--A couple of comments:
1. What reducing methane emissions would do is to reduce the radiative
forcing over the ensuing decade or two. With the heat from the higher
levels having built up in the ocean, the time for recovery of the
temperature (and climate) is longer, so until the
